3 ms·

I think the basic answer is they won't, which is a sad sad answer.

• _delirium 16y ago
  I don't think it has to be all bad. The article is talking about people saving enough money to live purely off their savings for 30+ years without working, which seems like a kind of silly goal. Why would someone spend something like half of their adult lives not working? At that age, I expect I'll either have enough presence of mind that I'll be doing some sort of work (even if reduced), or else I'll be senile/decrepit, in which case I definitely hope I don't drag out my end for 30 years. The idea of planning for 30 years of complete idleness seems crazy. Rather than retiring at a specific fixed age, it makes more sense to me to retire at a specific time-til-death or health status: say, when you're down to 10 years of life expectancy, or too sick to work, whichever comes first. Actually I think 65 was probably chosen because it was once roughly the age where those things were true.
  • mdwrigh2 16y ago
    While this is true, I think my answer still stands even if you plan on retirement for only 10 years. It doesn't really matter, they don't have enough income to live how they're living now, let alone having extra to support themselves once they are no longer working.